Ashley Schobert, Becca Goth, Cassidy Wethor
The article we chose talked about how president Obama tried to make amends with Iran. His first attempts however, were met with hostility from iranian supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. His second attempt, on September 24th was taken differently however, he wasn’t showing that he wanted friendship, but he was accusing them of producing nuclear weapons, which they promised not to do.’ This article is relevant to economics because it is dealing with the president and the other countries. You could say this would fall into a globalization category. Iran has oil which is a big part of our economy.
1) Do you believe we should be trying to intervene with Iran?
2) What could happen is we upset the Iranian leaders?
“Jaw-jaw for now.” The Economist. 28 Sept. 2013: 44-45. Print.
12 comments:
1.) I think it's dangerous but it could also be necessary.
2.) If we would be to upset Iranian leaders, they could turn against the United States and react violently.
I do think that we should try to intervene with Iran since the fewer people that have access to nuclear weapons the better. Only North Korea should have nuclear weapons. The Iranian leaders could declare war on the U.S. and take the battle to us.
1. I think that intervening with Iranian territory could be a step that we would have to take if they were doing something that we wouldn't want, but also comes with risk.
2.If we were to upset the Iranian leaders, they could get upset at the United States, and react in a way that we wouldn't be able to control. They also have plenty of oil which the United States would most likely not have access to anymore if they make them angry.
Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace...
I think that we should find (and use) a renewable source of energy because then we will not need to deal with all these squabbles over oil and fuel.
I only think we should intervene with Iran if they threaten us or our way of life. If they decide to raise the price of oil, we can step in.
If we upset the Iranian leaders they could send weapons towards us. Honestly though, if they sent weapons on us, we have a much larger arsenal which could potentially take out their whole country.
I don't think we should intervene with Iran unless they threaten our safety, freedoms, or rights. If we upset the Iranian leaders they could attack us along with their allies which could lead to a big would that could annihilate large numbers of people.
I don't think we should intervene with Iran. It is not our problem.
I think that we should not intervene with Iran. Although they are big oil producers, if we were to upset them it would cause many problems.
I don't think we should intervene with Iran because its their own country and if we do something to upset them then we may lose a lot of oil.
I feel that, due to our past with Iran, that we are in the wrong. Not only did we install a pro-western dictator back in the 1950s, but then we blockade them when they get mad at us for attempting to save our citizens by force. Because of this, we, as a nation, should apologize to Iran for our past offences.
I think America shouldn't try to make amends, but it could be worth it but very difficult to make amends. If we upset the leaders, they may use their power to have other countries go against us or use their supposed nuclear weapons.
If we want a friendship I don't think it is a good idea to have a fake one in a sense. I think intervening would be benificial but we have to be careful. A lot could happen if we make the Iranian leaders mad. That is a game we don't want to play.
Post a Comment